Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment IMHO the embargo was unconstitutional. (Score 1) 289

IMHO the Cuban Embargo was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Federal Government.

Think about it: Telling US citizens that they can't go to some place the government doesn't like because they're forbidden to spend US currency there (or spend other "hard" currency they bought with US currency), and going there requires spending money? Shades of the Iron Curtain and Catch-22. (If the US government wants to forbid such a thing and have even a chance of finding a Constitutional authorization, they need to DECLARE WAR against Cuba - and then actively fight it.)

If a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't exist, and hasn't from the moment of its passage. Why should The Donald obey a non-law?

But even if you don't believe the law is unconstitutional: The hypocrisy of anti-trump forces zinging him for dealing with Castro just floors me. These are the people who have made - and still make - heroes and heroines of Castro, Che Guevara, Bill Ayers, Angela Davis, and "Hanoi Jane'" Fonda, and a virtue of "Civil Disobedience" to laws they don't think are right, politically correct, or convenient. Do they REALLY think Trump's supporters would be swayed by this argument from THEM? B-)

Comment Re:There's a bigger issue here (Score 1) 242

The whole point is not eliminating "whole sections of society". That's exactly what this is about. If we refuse to vaccinate, we endanger those that cannot be vaccinated. Because the same group also cannot participate in a potential cure, for exactly the same reasons.

If these people could only endanger themselves, I'd say more power to them. Don't get vaccinated, but at least then have the decency to die peacefully when you get infected. If that was the whole story, I would not mind it. Not one bit. I'm all for idiots and assholes removing themselves from the gene pool. We, as society, can only benefit from it.

So technically, I would actually be for the removal of a section of society... albeit by their own doing, not mine.

The problem is that they don't just endanger themselves, but others too. It's a bit like drunk driving. If they could only kill themselves, all I would do is make sure they have enough to ensure a speedy delivery. Unfortunately they rarely die alone.

Comment Does't that indicate how small the niche is... (Score 1) 353

I see what you are saying, and at first I agreed - it seems like some phone maker would make a larger phone with more battery.

But after some thought, I'm pretty sure no-one would buy it and that's why they aren't making them. The problem is when buying a new phone a larger phone would look and feel terrible in comparison. A three day battery life would mean nothing to most people used to charging phones every day anyway, while the larger phone would not fit well in pockets, or be super heavy in a purse....

The fact is that it's just way too inconvenient to lug around un-needed battery with you all the time, being able to use an external battery for more power is way more flexible and people just prefer it.

Comment Other way around (Score 1) 353

Battery cases prove SOME people like fatter phones, but they are a minority. They don't sell hundreds of millions of battery cases.

The great thing about battery cases is that the people that don't mind a bulky phone have a solution, and the people who DON'T want bulk have a choice too. If phone makers make bulkier phones that's great for the people that want them, but you can't buy a case to make a phone thinner.

Comment Re: There's a bigger issue here (Score 1) 242

Ok, lemme rephrase that: There's a shortage of work that would be paying a wage.

And yes, you're absolutely right. Demand creates jobs. I've been saying this for ages, and every single time without fail I get shouted down that jobs are created by employers. But to employers, the job he creates is the necessary evil he would gladly go without if he could. Because "creating" a job means expense for him, not revenue.

I create a job if I want to buy apples. I create that job for the guy picking them. I create a job by wanting a new computer. I create a job by wanting to spend an evening at a bar. Ok, not a whole job, but a fraction thereof at least. If for nobody else, than for the owner of the bar who can keep the bar running because I spend my evening and my 100 bucks there.

And that only works if people have money to spend. But that's a different topic. What's left is that yes, there is work to be done. But pressing people to do it without a wage only creates even more pressure on wage earners who would now have to compete with these people forced into work. And if you tell me that "this would only apply to work nobody else wants to do" I have one sentence for you:

"H1B visa are just for jobs that we cannot fill with domestic workers"

Slashdot Top Deals

The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.